RAN Future Frigate Updates, disscusion and News

This is a discussion on RAN Future Frigate Updates, disscusion and News within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Hazdog
All this talk of what has/could/would/should have happened is great but it is not the point ...

All this talk of what has/could/would/should have happened is great but it is not the point of the argument that we could be having. Now let's talk about how the navy could adopt the lacking capabilities with the future procurement of the Anzac class replacement.

If anyone has the answers to my question's please respond.

Could an evolved Hobart class (the proposed design) fill an Air warfare destroyers role to the same capability?

Could the Global Combat Ship for fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?

Could the proposed FREMM frigate fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?

Finally which would be the best fit for the role?

The FREMM will have an air defence variant (FREDA) with the French navy. I don't know the details but it might simply be adapting the systems from the Horizon class.

My understanding is that CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT doesn't have the range to take full advantage of the capabilities offered by the SM2 family of missiles ... but it will be able to track and attack multiple targets with ESSM.

Impressive ... but not a replacement for the capability offered by the AWD. The main role of the new frigate will be ASW which means that this level of air defence will be more than adequate.

Most Destroyers in the Worlds Premier Navy's are pushing the 10,000 ton and over mark.Look at Japans Atagos, Republic of Koreas Sejong The Great Class and the Americans with their Burke's.

I recall a few members stating the Hobarts bridge and control rooms are pretty tight and more room is desired for all that planning of missions and related equipment and sailors needed to operate as a true AWD.

We skimped out on the Hobarts but they are a great ship for sure

My pick would have been a Flight IIA Burke for a true AWD.

Australia should just evolve the Hobarts for our future needs

Only a dedicated AWD would replace another AWD ,you would not want an ASW FREMM frigate acting as a AWD.

I could be wrong...but that' the way i see it.

I see that the Italian ASW version of the FREMM will be coming down under and hanging out with the RAN

The FREMM will have an air defence variant (FREDA) with the French navy. I don't know the details but it might simply be adapting the systems from the Horizon class.

My understanding is that CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT doesn't have the range to take full advantage of the capabilities offered by the SM2 family of missiles ... but it will be able to track and attack multiple targets with ESSM.

Impressive ... but not a replacement for the capability offered by the AWD. The main role of the new frigate will be ASW which means that this level of air defence will be more than adequate.

My understanding is that CEAFAR is developing the capability to support SM-2 and SM-6 and it is more of a scaleability issue than any particular issue with the product's technical specs.

It is currently only in-service supporting ESSM equipped ships. When it is proposed to support SM-2/6 equipped vessels, I imagine it will be appropriately capable of doing so.

I understand that you would not like the navy to be using an ASuW ship for AW purposes but in case of an attack that rendered the AWD in the 'task group' unusable, would they be able to use any of the proposed Future Frigates for this backup role?

Hauritz how much 'room' does the FREMM proposed have for future upgrades i.e. tonnage?

The idea that something can only be replaced one for one will hopefully be brought for with the new Future Frigates i.e. not leaving any capabilities behind.

With the upgrade of the Anzacs can they also provide cover for the LHD's?
(Before someone gives me websites links or anything to take a look at, I have spent multiple hours looking for information that would inform me of any other capabilities that our navy would have/has)

Last edited by Hazdog; December 29th, 2016 at 07:39 AM.
Reason: lack of information

My understanding is that CEAFAR is developing the capability to support SM-2 and SM-6 and it is more of a scaleability issue than any particular issue with the product's technical specs.

It is currently only in-service supporting ESSM equipped ships. When it is proposed to support SM-2/6 equipped vessels, I imagine it will be appropriately capable of doing so.

Certainly part of the the development is the inclusion of a volume search radar in the CEA suite. This is programmed to be fitted to the ANZAC to replace the 49, so it should be mature for the future frigate.

CEA have always stressed the system is scalable and the intention in numerous iterations of the white paper is for the future frigate to be SM6 capable.

The other option is a CEC capability would allow the future frigate to carry SM2 amd SM6 that may be employed by the AWD.

Could an evolved Hobart class (the proposed design) fill an Air warfare destroyers role to the same capability?

Could the Global Combat Ship for fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?

Could the proposed FREMM frigate fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?

Finally which would be the best fit for the role?

The question of which one of the three Future Frigate contenders could act as a 'substitute or back up' for the AWD's, and which one would be the 'best fit' to fill that role, is pretty much a moot point.

As it appears, regardless which one of the three contenders chosen, they will likely have the same CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT systems, and possibly the same overall sensor package, regardless of which hull design chosen.

A better question would probably be to ask what will that sensor package deliver for the selected ship design?

As it appears at the moment CEAFAR (on the Anzac class) works fine with the shorter range ESSM weapon, but as ADMk2 mentioned, CEAFAR is 'scaleable', CEA on their website refer to it as being "scalable in size and power to meet a broad range of applications, suitable from 'Corvettes to Cruisers' ".

And as ADMk2 also said, it appears that CEAFAR is developing the capability to support SM-2 and SM-6.

So that really is the answer to the question, what level of capability will CEAFAR and the other sensors provide to the Future Frigates?

If it is no more capable that installed in the Anzac class, then ESSM is probably where it's at, but if it includes that SM-2/-6 capability, then they will have a capability 'closer' to the AWD's.

So that is one half of the question, the other half is how does the Government intend to 'equip' the ships when it comes to weapons load and mix? That I wouldn't have a clue.

Bottom line will be, 'if' the sensors are there to support (and get the best out of), either SM-2/-6, then yes a more longer range AAW capability is certainly possible for the Future Frigates.

And again, if not, the Future Frigates AAW capability will probably not be much better than the ESSM equipped Anzacs.

As it stands at the moment, the RAN will have two distinct types of large surface combatants, both with a different primary focus, the AWD's with a primary AAW capability (but also an ASuW and ASW capability), the Future Frigates, a primary ASW capability (but also an ASuW capability and an AAW capability of sorts, what that is who knows??).

It looks to be mounted much higher than the main Radar on the the AWD's.http://www.infodefensa.com/archivo/i...a_Navantia.jpg
It will overcome the F-105 weakness of only two directors with significant blind spots, with greater redundancy and able to target more missiles more effectively.

I would imagine the Future frigate will carry a load of SM-2, ESSM, LRAM. With 48 VLS we should fill them with something.

I would imagine the AWD will stick to SM-2, SM-6, ESSM with perhaps SM-3 in its future.

When I recently touted an extra two destroyers, I was, and still am, mainly concerned with our surface ships number. We now have three amphibious ships, we are planning to have twelve submarines, but only 12 skimmers (11 until recently).
I am not knocking the need for twelve submarines, but is there any other navy that has as many submarines as surface fighting ships? And we shoud be increasing our fleet size, not reducing it.
Who knows, if Trump continues once president as he has inicated to date, he may also expects us to do more in our own defence.

But I believe as Hairyman is 'worried' about the number of surface combatants, a very real and founded thought. but i believe that the future OPV's will help in easing his thoughts, because these OPV's will have a displacement of 2000+ tonnes which is over half the displacement of the Anzac's. The OPV's would be extremely useful in border operations and could act in many other ways which could be very useful and free up the 12 major surface combatants for more important operations.

When I recently touted an extra two destroyers, I was, and still am, mainly concerned with our surface ships number. We now have three amphibious ships, we are planning to have twelve submarines, but only 12 skimmers (11 until recently).
I am not knocking the need for twelve submarines, but is there any other navy that has as many submarines as surface fighting ships? And we shoud be increasing our fleet size, not reducing it.
Who knows, if Trump continues once president as he has inicated to date, he may also expects us to do more in our own defence.

If Trump does have expectations of 'more' out of various nations regarding their level of defence spending, a lot of other nations will probably be in the spotlight long before Australia, we are getting very close to 2% of GDP, others are still a lot closer to 1%.

All things considered, we are pretty fortunate as a nation to be getting closer to that 2% mark, while as I said so many other are not.

Anyway......

It almost sounds like you are saying that having a submarine fleet as large as the major surface combatant fleet is 'bad' thing, how? I don't get that? (It's not so much that the surface fleet is reducing significantly, it is the submarine fleet that is being significantly increased in size and capability).

Eventually having twelve 'large' capable submarines in our fleet is going to put a lot more pressure on 'the other guy' to spend valuable resources in an effort to counter such a large capable submarine fleet, works to our advantage in my opinion, regardless of the size of our surface fleet.

Getting back to the RAN's Destroyer/Frigate fleet, we are going to move from a fleet of (currently 11), 3 x 4100t and 8 x 3600t ships to an eventual (as currently planned) fleet of 12 x 6-7000t ships, with what appears to be greater capabilities than the ships being replaced.

As for the overall numbers of our major surface combatant fleet (if you compare our plans against so many other Western nations), our fleet is pretty well 'maintaining' the same numbers, most of those other Western nations have significantly reduced the number of those type of hulls in commission, the UK is a good example, and there are others too.

Again, not saying that 'more' isn't good, but how exactly is the Government going to pay for the type of increase you are suggesting? How is it going to produce those two extra hulls? I'd like to know how you propose it happens.

For the sake of the discussion, lets say that May next year (Budget time), the Government announces that the Future Frigate fleet will increase from 9 ships to 11 ships.

Though to be fair the reason we are maintaining numbers at about a dozen is we never achieved the planned force levels of every major defence review we have ever had. Be it the pre WWI 6 Fleet Units, each with an armoured cruiser, three light cruisers, three submarines', six destroyer's, a tender / depot ship and a number of additional hulls to cover refits; the post WWI two Fleet Units based around battlecruisers and supported by carriers, with additional cruiser squadrons, destroyer and submarine flotillas for coastal and trade defence; the post WWII pair of squadrons each with a carrier, two cruisers, six destroyers and a fleet tanker; the fifties plan for six destroyers, twelve frigates and two carriers; the 60s two ocean navy that needed three carriers and twenty three destroyers, light destroyers and destroyer escorts (frigates); other iterations from the 70s, 80s, 90s increasing skimmer numbers (ie, 10 FFGs), introducing fast attack craft, missile corvettes, multi role OCVs etc. none really went anywhere. So when everyone else was cutting back to the bone we were already there as we had made cut backs, delayed procurements etc. in anticipation of coming capabilities that never arrived.

Though to be fair the reason we are maintaining numbers at about a dozen is we never achieved the planned force levels of every major defence review we have ever had. Be it the pre WWI 6 Fleet Units, each with an armoured cruiser, three light cruisers, three submarines', six destroyer's, a tender / depot ship and a number of additional hulls to cover refits; the post WWI two Fleet Units based around battlecruisers and supported by carriers, with additional cruiser squadrons, destroyer and submarine flotillas for coastal and trade defence; the post WWII pair of squadrons each with a carrier, two cruisers, six destroyers and a fleet tanker; the fifties plan for six destroyers, twelve frigates and two carriers; the 60s two ocean navy that needed three carriers and twenty three destroyers, light destroyers and destroyer escorts (frigates); other iterations from the 70s, 80s, 90s increasing skimmer numbers (ie, 10 FFGs), introducing fast attack craft, missile corvettes, multi role OCVs etc. none really went anywhere. So when everyone else was cutting back to the bone we were already there as we had made cut backs, delayed procurements etc. in anticipation of coming capabilities that never arrived.

V, don't disagree one bit about all of those planned force levels of the past, and all the various defence reviews, all historical facts.

But still at the end of the day the Destroyer/Frigate fleet for the last 50 years or so has been at a pretty constant level of approx. 12.

Is that good? Is that bad? Maybe, maybe not, but it's reality.

Anyway, so here we are today, 2016 (2017 in a few hours too), the plan as it stands today is that the Destroyer/Frigate fleet is to eventually be 12.

I certainly don't have an issue or a problem with 'wanting/wishing' to see that fleet larger, my question is always, how?

Very odd to not just install VLS if the intent is "future proofing."
Having an empty missile mag is "future proof."
Fitted for but not with, using a box launcher makes sense.
Doing it with an integral structure like VLS makes less sense. Much more complex to install than a bolt on box launcher.

That said, some of the arguments against the need are valid, but as the article also states, there are some loadouts for it that do make sense.
Particularly, for AAW, ASUW, and ASW. Of which I'd say 2 fall under core missions for the Type 26 of either variant: ASUW and ASW.

NSM bolt on box launchers are fine, but topside real estate is always scarce, and there is a huge gap between NSM and LRASM.
For ASW, I wouldn't be awfully thrilled about an ASW escort that isn't capable of performing a VLA attack. Unless there is an expectation that the equipped sonar suite is incapable of taking advantage of the VLA's range, in which case it would be a vestigial weapon.

V, don't disagree one bit about all of those planned force levels of the past, and all the various defence reviews, all historical facts.

But still at the end of the day the Destroyer/Frigate fleet for the last 50 years or so has been at a pretty constant level of approx. 12.

Is that good? Is that bad? Maybe, maybe not, but it's reality.

Anyway, so here we are today, 2016 (2017 in a few hours too), the plan as it stands today is that the Destroyer/Frigate fleet is to eventually be 12.

I certainly don't have an issue or a problem with 'wanting/wishing' to see that fleet larger, my question is always, how?

The surface and ASW fleet is certainly receiving its fair share of funding, about 24% of the projected investment in the 2016 ICP, the largest allocation IIRC
When calls come for more platforms/manpower it's worth going back to the ICP and try to figure what capability will be sacrificed in order to achieve it. It's a very sobering exercise and I for one would not be willing to forgo any of it.
The simple truth is that the surface combatants have done very well and we should view defence of this country as a whole.